903R90013
t CBP/TRS 43/90
* June 1990
h
i
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III Snfornwlion Resource
Center (2PM52)
W Chcstnul Street
Chesapeake Bay
Living Resources
Monitoring Plan
First Annual Progress Report
Living Resources and Monitoring
Subcommittees
225
.C54
XI4 2
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
-------
CBP/TRS 43/90
June 1990
Chesapeake Bay
Living Resources
Monitoring Plan
First Annual Progress Report
Living Resources and Monitoring
Subcommittees
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
-------
Chesapeake Bay Living Resources
Monitoring Plan
First Annual Progress Report
Prepared by the Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Monitoring Work Group
for the
Monitoring and Living Resources Subcommittees
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III information Resource
Center (3PM52)
841 Chsstr.ut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
June 1990
Printed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
for the
Chesapeake Bay Program
Printed on recycled paper
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the first annual report on progress in implementing the Chesapeake Bay Living
Resources Monitoring Plan (Governance Commitment Number 5 of the 1987 Chesapeake
Bay Agreement, adopted July 1988). The Plan is to be phased in over a three year period
ending in 1991.
The initial phases of implementation .generally have been successful, and are proceeding
on schedule.
Highlights:
o With cooperative funding from EPA, NOAA, Maryland and Virginia (1988-1989),
additional data management staff have been placed at the Chesapeake Bay Liaison
Office, the Maryland Department of Natrual Resources, and the Virginia Marine
Resources Commission. Much progress has been made in building the living resources
component of the Chesapeake Bay data base and in deriving important information
from long-term data sets.
o The Ambient Toxicity Assessment Workshop was held in Annapolis in July 1989,
with support from NOAA's Office of Coastal Resources Management and the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources. The workshop report has been reviewed and
will be published in the spring of 1990. A work plan for a two-year pilot assessment
of water and sediment toxicity to fish and invertebrates in natural Bay habitat areas
has been approved, and work is scheduled to begin in June 1990.
o A workshop on monitoring of early life stages of fish (eggs and larvae) was held
in Baltimore in December 1989. Scientists, technicians and managers agreed on
the principles that should be applied to incorporating ichthyoplankton sampling into
existing monitoring programs and several specific recommendations. A final report
of the workshop is available (Houde, 1990), through the EPA Chesapeake Bay Liaison
Office.
o A task force was established to review the draft Potomac River Living Resources
Monitoring Plan. A final plan, which provides for better integration of living resources
and water quality monitoring in the tidal Potomac River, was adopted in 1989, and
is being implemented under the supervision of the Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Funding
The Monitoring Plan estimate of the total cost of the living resources monitoring
program was $4.01 million per year. Of this amount, $2.26 million was existing funding,
iii
-------
with about $1.76 million required in additional funds. Federal and state initiatives have
provided at least $1.20 million, or 68%, of the new money. The remaining funds (about
$550,000) were intended for items (1) which are depending upon workshop recommendations
for their final form, or (2) have been deferred for technical reasons. It appears that large
amounts of new funding above that already committed will not be required during 1990.
Above all, however, monitoring programs require stable funding for many years if they
are to be successful. Some key monitoring components (e.g., SAV surveys) are dependent
upon a patchwork of cooperative funding each year; most are vulnerable to changes in
state or Federal priorities.
Conclusions and Recommendations
o The Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy has made monitoring of tidal and non-tidal
wetlands a crucial element of the bay restoration. A workshop to develop a wetlands
monitoring plan is a high priority.
o Monitoring of oysters, clams and crabs needs to be reviewed fully in light of recent
research and current management information needs. A monitoring workshop for
these species also is a high priority.
o Chesapeake Bay Program FY1990 funds have been budgeted for monitoring workshops.
The Living Resources Monitoring Workgroup must coordinate with the Wetlands
Workgroup, the SAV Workgroup, and CBSAC to plan and facilitate workshops, to
be held during calendar year 1990, to develop specific monitoring recommendations
for wetlands, shellfish, SAV, juvenile fish, benthos, and plankton.
o Improved data management and increased attention to long-term living resources
data sets have resulted in improved accessibility and reliability of important data
sets. The CBPCC "Priority Data Sets Acquisition and Status Listing" should be
maintained and periodically updated. The current level of effort in living resources
data management should be maintained.
o Computer resources at CBPCC are in need of review. Some of the living resour-
ces data sets that have been acquired are quite large. Disk storage space is satur-
ated and memory is sometimes inadequate for processing the large data sets efficiently.
o Although the recommended living resources reporting system is largely in place
(annual program reports, biennial "State of the Bay" Monitoring Report, and oc-
casional synthesis reports), it has not been formally adopted or understood as a
system by all data generators. Better coordination of data analysis and reporting
for living resources should be a priority of the Living Resources Subcommitte and
the Monitoring Subcommittee through its Data Analysis Work Group.
IV
-------
o Vigorous efforts have been made over the first year since the adoption of the Living
Resources Monitoring Plan to address the Plan's objectives. Comparable efforts
over the next year will ensure that a complete living resources monitoring program
will be in place on schedule in 1991. The chief requirement is that coordination
be maintained between program elements through continuing review, communication
and joint reporting.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The information contained in this report was compiled primarily by means of a
questionnaire mailed to many Bay Program subcommittee members and agency staff. Patsy
Heasly of EPA CBLO developed and has maintained the tracking matrix (Appendix A)
which has been invaluable in recording and updating current information on the status of
the Program. The quick and substantive responses to the questionnaire from all several
people and agencies were most helpful and are appreciated. Computer Sciences Corporation
staff at the Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office have provided much important service to the
monitoring program's data management component (see Appendixes B and C). Writing,
editing and graphics were the work of Steve Jordan, Pauline Vaas and Lamar Platt, all of
Maryland DNR.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. STATUS OF THE LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING PROGRAM ... 1
Finfish and Shellfish 2
Wildlife 4
Plant Communities 4
Benthic and Planktonic Communities 5
Other Living Resources Monitoring 6
III. DATA MANAGEMENT 6
IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13
REFERENCES 15
APPENDIX A
LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION
TRACKING MATRIX 17
APPENDIX B
PRIORITY DATA SETS ACQUISITION AND STATUS LISTING
(LIVING RESOURCES SECTION) 33
APPENDIX C
SAMPLES OF DOCUMENTATION AND CONTENTS FILES
FROM THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM LIVING RESOURCES
DATA BASE 45
vii
-------
Vlll
-------
L INTRODUCTION
The Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Monitoring Plan (CEC 1988) was developed
to fulfill Governance Commitment Number 5 of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement:
"...by July 1988, develop a Bay-wide monitoring plan for selected commercially, recreationally
and ecologically valuable species." The Plan was adopted by the Chesapeake Executive
Council in July 1988 "as a guide to collection of biological data necessary to measure progress
towards meeting the living-resources-ohjectives set forth in the Agreement." The Council's
adoption statement for the Plan "..direct[s] the Living Resources Subcommittee to work with
the Monitoring Subcommittee to prepare an annual report addressing the progress attained in
meeting the Plan's goals."
This first annual report is devoted to documenting progress toward implementing
the Plan's recommendations, a process scheduled for completion in 1991. The report also
is a first iteration of the periodic technical review that is required to ensure that the living
resources monitoring program is meeting its objectives. To gather current information, a
questionnaire was mailed to Work Group and Subcommittee members, as well as key people
in the agencies responsible for biological data collection programs, in early December 1989.
A "tracking matrix" was developed to document the current status of each detailed
recommendation in the Plan. A copy of the tracking matrix was mailed with each
questionnaire. Response to the questionnaire was good; respondents provided detailed
annotations of the tracking matrix and a number of substantive comments.
The remainder of this report is divided into three major sections: (1) a status report
for Plan recommendations with a discussion of program needs, proposed modifications and
future directions; (2) a description of the living resources data management effort (a high
priority of the Plan), including summaries of key data sets that have been acquired and
documented by the Bay Program Computer Center as a part of this effort; and (3) a summary
with recommendations. The complete tracking matrix is included as Appendix A. Appendix
B is the Priority Data Acquisitions List (Living Resources Section), which shows the current
status of efforts to acquire, document and summarize data sets and to make them available
to the Chesapeake Bay Program Computer Center (CBPCC) user community.
II. STATUS OF THE LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING PROGRAM
The Living Resources Monitoring Plan was the result of an organized attempt to
coordinate biological data collection for all levels of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The
Plan focused on long-term monitoring to obtain status and trends information for important
species and species groups. The highest priority was assigned to maintaining existing programs
that generate consistent, long-term data over broad geographical areas. Improved data
management, seen as the key to making living resources information available and useful
on a baywide basis, was given second priority. Recommendations for technical reviews of
various monitoring programs and for new and enhanced monitoring programs were given
-------
lower priorities. With the evolution of the Monitoring Plan into a monitoring/>rogram, priorities
have changed. Major long-term data collection programs have continued, and living resources
data management has been strengthened significantly. Therefore, the highest priorities having
been satisfied, the relative importance of workshops to review programs with respect to their
objectives, technical soundness, and needs for enhancement has increased. In addition some
new data collection elements have received high priority for funding and implementation.
The following is a rather general discussion of the monitoring program status, although
some specific examples are highlighted. For details, please refer to the tracking matrix
(Appendix A) and the Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Monitoring Plan.
Monitoring programs for species that are harvested (fish, shellfish and game birds)
have been designed to provide the kinds of information needed to manage harvests and
protect populations from over-exploitation. Even some species that are not harvested [e.g.
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and wetland plants] have regulatory significance, so
their abundance and distribution need to be monitored. A different, but not necessarily
incompatible, purpose for biological data collection is evaluation of regional measures to
reduce pollution and protect habitats, which requires monitoring of the Chesapeake ecosystem.
The Monitoring Plan recognized that management of harvestable stocks and management
of the environment had common data needs, and therefore it incorporated elements of existing
fish, shellfish, and waterfowl monitoring.
Finfish
The major core elements of finfish monitoring are beach seine and trawl surveys.
Routine beach seine surveys have been conducted in Chesapeake Bay tributaries since 1954,
primarily to estimate the number of young-of-the year striped bass. Seine surveys now are
conducted by identical methods in Virginia and Maryland. These surveys provide data on
many species in addition to striped bass. The Monitoring Plan recommended a detailed
review of the historical data and the targeting of a broader range of species for sampling.
Surveys are now in place for yellow perch (Maryland), shad and herring (Maryland and
Virginia), in addition to striped bass. The District of Columbia also conducts a general-
ized (multi-species) beach seine survey. A determined effort has been underway to recover
information on long-term changes in estuarine fish assemblages from an analysis of the
Maryland Estuarine Juvenile Finfish Survey data. A workshop will be held during 1990
to review methods and determine the appropriate ways to use data from seine surveys.
A baywide trawl survey was initiated as a one-year pilot program by Virginia, Maryland
and the Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC) in 1987. Although both
states have implemented large-scale trawl projects, there has been significant difficulty in
coming to agreement on standard methods. Maryland principal investigators and managers
did not view a generalized trawl survey as cost-effective unless it provided high-resolution
-------
data for fishery management purposes. Therefore, while Virginia has implemented a
standardized trawl program based on the one-year pilot project, Maryland has allotted five
years to methods development. Considerable progress has been made toward overcoming
the inconsistencies. It should be recognized that a program of this magnitude, unprecedented
in the bay, should pose some difficulties in implementation. Uniquely comprehensive
information on the abundance and distribution of fish is being generated as a result of
these surveys. The trawl program will require intensive periodic review by CBSAC and
its technical-working -groups to determine-if th& program~is~meeting-its-objectives.
Supplementary trawl programs are continuing in Maryland, Virginia and the District
of Columbia. Improved data management and communication have been established between
the jurisdictions and will help to make the data more useful on a baywide basis.
A workshop was held in Annapolis in December 1989 to review monitoring and
research needs for early life stages of fish, as recommended by the Monitoring Plan. The
Final Report (Houde, 1990) was distributed in May 1990. Two major questions about
ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) monitoring were addressed: (1) should ichthyoplankon
be monitored as a part of the bay water quality and plankton monitoring program; and
(2) is monitoring of anadromous ichthyoplankton more effective than alternative methods
of obtaining information on processes that affect recruitment of these species. Three of
the several recommendations from the report are highlighted here.
1. The present monitoring schedule and efforts in the Bay are not adequate to
survey the spawning areas and times of anadromous fishes."
2. "...selected, archived plankton samples from the Bay Monitoring Program [should]
be examined and analyzed for ichthyoplankton to determine if the sampling design
is adequate to evaluate abundances and spatio-temporal distributions of selected
species [primarily bay anchovy, hogchoker and naked goby]."
3. "...ichthyoplankton research [primarily for anadromous species] has a role in
studies of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and in fisheries management.. Proposed
research projects on early life stages of fishes must stand on their own merits and
be considered on a project-by-project basis."
In consideration of the workshop recommendations, Living Resources Monitoring
Plan recommendations FES1-FES3 (see Appendix A, page 2) should be dropped, and FES4
should be deferred pending evaluation of archived ichthyoplankton samples. Current early
life stage surveys should be subject to workshop recommendation 3 (above).
Shellfish
-------
Long-term oyster and blue crab monitoring programs are continuing in Maryland
and Virginia. The states and CBSAC have supported research on the best methods for
obtaining data on oyster abundance and recruitment, and have initiated a cooperative blue
crab stock assessment project. Both projects have included analysis of long-term monitoring
data. The chief monitoring issue for blue crabs, aside from fishery dependent and research
data needs, is to obtain "Reliable estimates of year class strength at several key stages in the
life history" (Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Management Plan; CEC 1989, page 12). The blue
crab stock-assessment-project should-be-expected to develop recommendations for methods
by which Maryland and Virginia can obtain these estimates annually.
The Living Resources Monitoring Work Group and the Monitoring Subcommittee
have put a high priority on a shellfish monitoring workshop to be held in 1990. Recent
research results will be helpful in developing recommendations for improved monitoring
of oyster recruitment, adult stocks, and diseases. Needs for measuring the abundance and
recruitment of hard clams and soft clams should be evaluated during the workshop.
Wildlife
Long-term surveys of waterfowl, colonial birds, shore and seabirds, raptors, and
sea turtles are continuing. Recommendations for improved information exchange and expanded
use of wildlife data are being implemented partially through the development of the Waterfowl
Management Plan (CEC 1990). Historical waterfowl trends have been analyzed and the
results included in the Waterfowl Management Plan.
Plant Communities
Baywide aerial and ground surveys of SAV will continue in 1990. A multi-year
monitoring strategy will be developed pursuant to the SAV Implementation Plan (to be
published July 1990). The strategy should be developed in enough detail so that a monitoring
program can be implemented without a lot of additional development. Funding for annual
SAV surveys continues to be problematic and should be addressed in the Management Plan.
Second tier (habitat) monitoring of SAV, which has provided valuable information on water
quality requirements for SAV, has been enhanced and is providing a significant component
of the SAV technical synthesis report now under development and scheduled for publication
in July 1990.
The Monitoring Subcommittee assigned the highest priority to a wetlands monitoring
workshop, which will be held in 1990. Guidelines for long-term monitoring of tidal and
non-tidal wetlands are included in the draft Wetlands Policy Implementation Plan.
-------
Benthic and Planktonic Communities
Monitoring of lower trophic levels (phytoplankton, zooplankton, and benthic
organisms) was established in 1984 as the ecosystem component of the comprehensive
baywide water quality monitoring program, in some cases building on earlier state monitoring
programs. These ecologically oriented programs are important elements of living resources
monitoring. In general, the Monitoring Plan recommended their continuation, in some
cases with-enhancements.- All were-recemmended for review to ensure their consistency
and comparability among jurisdictions.
Phytoplankton, zooplankton and benthic monitoring has continued as recommended.
After a thorough review of the benthic monitoring program in Maryland, it was decided
to reduce the number of stations. The discontinued stations were those originally established
to monitor the effects of power plants on Bay habitats. Reviewers decided that these effects
now were well known and that additional data collection for this purpose was unnecessary.
Maryland now maintains a network of benthic monitoring stations comparable in geographic
scope to the Virginia network.
Some recommended enhancements to monitoring of phytoplankton and zooplankton
have been determined not to be cost effective, or problematic for technical reasons. As
a specific example, pilot efforts to monitor picoplankton (the smallest of floating organisms,
including bacteria) have shown that gathering detailed data for this group is expensive
and technically demanding. For the present, it is recommended that picoplankton analysis
should be the province of research in the Chesapeake Bay and not incorporated into routine
monitoring. Photosynthetic picoplankton are included in biomass estimates derived from
routine fluorometric measurements of chlorophyll during water quality monitoring cruises.
Another example of a recommended enhancement determined not to be cost effective is
size fractionation of chlorophyll measurements.
Other recommended enhancements to plankton monitoring have been implemented.
For example, Virginia has added in vivo fluorescence and primary production measure-
ments to its mainstem monitoring program. Maryland has added fluorescence measurements
to its Potomac River cruises.
Recommendations for formal workshops to develop consensus methods for baywide
monitoring of plankton and benthos have been revised in favor of meetings of principal
investigators to improve (1) data comparability between jurisdictions, (2) data management,
and (3) reporting and synthesis of information. These meetings will be held during 1990,
and should be held on a periodic (e.g. annual or biennial) basis subsequently.
-------
Other Living Resources Monitoring
The Monitoring Plan recommended increased attention to the problems of toxic body
burdens and ambient water and sediment toxicity to living resources. The adoption of
the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy (CEC 1988) and the formation of
a Toxics Subcommittee by the Chesapeake Bay Program have facilitated the implementa-
tion of these recommendations. A nationally attended workshop was held in Annapolis
in July 1989 to assist in the-development of-an Ambient-Toxicky Assessment and Monitoring
Program. The workshop report has been reviewed and will be published in spring 1990.
State and Federal funds have been committed to a two-year pilot program to validate methods
and to begin to assess the extent of ambient toxicity problems in selected areas of the
Chesapeake Bay (Elizabeth, Patapsco and Potomac Rivers). A work plan for the pilot project
was completed in January 1990. Important tissue toxics burden data sets have been identified
and the process of acquisition and documentation by CBPCC was initiated in 1989 (for
an example, see Appendix C).
'Tributary Ecosystem Monitoring", conceived in the Monitoring Plan as an approach
to better understanding of anthropogenic effects on the estuarine ecosystem, has been
implemented on a pilot basis in Maryland. The project is focusing on the abundance,
diversity, health, and species complement of finfish assemblages as indicators of biological
integrity of several tributary areas. A work plan is being prepared for continuation and
possible expansion of this effort. Existing tributary trawl and seine survey data from Virginia
may provide equivalent information; this analysis should be pursued.
As recommended, a task force was established to review the draft Potomac River
Living Resources Monitoring Plan. A final plan, which provides for better integration of
living resources and water quality monitoring in the tidal Potomac River, was adopted in
1989, and is being implemented under the supervision of the Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
m. DATA MANAGEMENT
Four people were added to the Computer Sciences Corporation staff at CBPCC in
early 1989 for the sole purpose of improving living resources data management. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission have added staff or contributed
existing staff to this effort. These resources have made it possible to develop the living
resources section of the Priority Data Sets Acquisition and Status Listing (Appendix B) and
to begin acquisition, documentation, and incorporation of important data into the CBPCC
data base (Table I).
-------
Table I. Status of acquiring, documenting, and incorporating living resources data
sets into the CBPCC data base. Some of these data sets have required a large amount
of programming, research and quality assurance work.
Listed Acquired Computerized Documented Completed
78 25 19 12 11
The improvements in living resources data management since the adoption of the
Monitoring Plan have enabled the initiation of rigorous analyses of long-term trends and
geographical patterns in the abundance and condition of fish, shellfish, SAV, and plankton.
These efforts, quite successful so far, must continue so that the wealth of biological data
that is being collected in the Bay can be transformed into information useful to managers,
scientists, and the public. It should be noted that the formation of a comprehensive, reliable
data base has been a goal of the CBP since its inception; to continue to build and maintain
this information resource will require continuing commitments of staff, equipment and dollars
by the CBP partners.
Examples of documentation and data summaries from some of the data sets that
have been incorporated into the CBP data base are appended to this report (Appendix C):
(1) Baywide commercial fish landings 1929-1988; (2) Mussel watch toxic body burden data
from the NOAA National Status and Trends Monitoring Program; (3) Combined Maryland
and Virginia juvenile fish (beach seine) data 1954-1988 partial time series for Virginia);
and (4) The Maryland Adult Striped Bass Survey 1981-1988. Graphics which display the
contents of these four data sets are presented below. These graphics are not intended
to be analytical tools; they were selected to show in the simplest form the types and ranges
of data that now are available to CBPCC users.
-------
FISH LANDINGS FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY
30O
0)
Q
O
Q.
U.
O
100
d
5
CATCH
— VALUE
a
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
zd 20
V)
cc
1990
O
a
u.
O
O
YEAR
Fig.l Time series of the data set FISHLAND.SSD which contains records of weight and value
of all fish commercially harvested in the Chesapeake Bay. Total catch is the sum of Maryland
and Virginia landings. Menhaden were deleted from the time series because changes in the
reporting methods for the species caused spurious trends in the data.
-------
MEAN PCB CONCENTRATION
IN OYSTER TISSUE
MOUNTAIN POINT BAR
180
160
140
120
>
Q
O
0
z
100
80
60
40
20
PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB
23456789
NUMBER OF CHLORINE ATOMS PER MOLECULE
Fig. 2. Mean concentrations of eight PCB congeners in
oyster tissue. Samples were collected in 1986-1988 at
Mountain Point Bar, near the mouth of the Magothy
River, as part og the NOAA Mussel Watch monitoring
program. Concentrations are shown in parts per billion
(ng/g) of dry tissue.
-------
SEINE SURVEY IN VIRGINIA
SPECIES
ATLANTIC MENHADE
ATLANTIC SILVERS
BAY ANCHOVY
SPOT
WHITE PERCH
SPOTTAIL SHINER
HOGCHOKER
MUMMICHOG
EASTERN SILVERY
ATLANTIC CROAKER
TIDEWATER SILVER
BANDED KILLIFISH
SATINFIN SHINER
TESSELLATED DART
ROUGH SILVERSIDE
GIZZARD SHAD
BLUEBACK HERRING
AMERICAN SHAD
STRIPED KILLIFIS
BLUEGILL
STRIPED MULLET
CHANNEL CATFISH
WHITE CATFISH
GOLDEN SHINER
ATLANTIC NEEDLEF
AMERICAN EEL
YELLOW PERCH
SUMMER FLOUNDER
PUMPKINSEED
WEAKFISH
ALEWIFE
HARVESTFISH
BLUEFISH
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.001000.00
MEAN COUNT
10
-------
SEINE SURVEY IN MARYLAND
SPECIES
ATLANTIC MENHADE
ATLANTIC SILVERS
BLUEBACK HERRING
WHITE PERCH
SPOT
ROUGH SILVERSIDE
BAY ANCHOVY
SPOTTAIL SHINER
STRIPED KILLIFIS
ALEWIFE
GIZZARD SHAD
HOGCHOKER
TIDEWATER SILVER
MUMMICHOG
SILVERY MINNOW
SATINFIN SHINER
CHANNEL CATFISH
ATLANTIC NEEDLEF
BLUEFISH
STRIPED ANCHOVY
TESSELLATED DART
YELLOW PERCH
AMERICAN SHAD
BANDED KILLIFISH
CARP
PUMPKINSEED
SUMMER FLOUNDER
AMERICAN EEL
GOLDEN SHINER
WHITE CATFISH
HARVESTFISH
BLUEGILL
Fig. 3. Mean count by species
of juvenile fish collected in-.
seine survey in Maryland and
Virginia in 1980. Data
extracted from the file
MDVAJIND.SSD which is
used to calculate the striped
bass juvenile index. Thirty-two
species in Maryland arid thirty-
one species in Virginia, in
addition to those shown, were
caught in the seine survey in
19SO in low numbers. Species
other than striped bass and
white perch may not have
been captured in proportion to
their true abundance.
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.001000.00
MEAN COUNT
11
-------
SPECIES
ATLANTIC NEJHADE
MOTE PERCH
CHAMCL CATFISH
CIZZAROSHAD
ALEHFE
BLUEBACK KRRIN6
HflTE CATFISH
HNTER aOUNDER
WITH BASS X STR
BLUEFISH
gAXFISH
HOOHOKER
CARP
AMERICAN SHAD
BLUE CRAB
BLACK SEA BASS
NORTHERN SEAROBI
YELLW PERCH
SUNHER FLOUNDER
BROW BULLHEAD
SPOT
MOTE SUCKER
HICKORY SHU)
ATLANTIC STURGEO
THCADFIN SHAD
10
FISfMUMSUN
118861
37056
27593
9677
3908
2240
1716
1318
447
405
382
366
303
266
230
203
166
164
113
90
74
47
42
36
23
20
10000
100000
COUNT
Fig. 4. Total abundances by species caught in the Maryland gill net survey of adult fishes in the
Chesapeake Bay during 1981-1988. The data were extracted from the file MDSTBASS.SSD. The
survey is used to monitor striped bass stocks. Other species may not be captured in proportion
to their actual abundance.
12
-------
IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Living Resources Monitoring Plan has been very successful in generating the
attention, funding and work required to establish a consistent and productive biological
monitoring program for Chesapeake Bay. No plan of its scope could or should be implemented
in ultimate detail, however. It is natural that some of the original recommendations should
have been-found unneeessary-or even unrealistic.- The recommendations that have been
modified as a result of this review generally were intended as refinements to core monitor-
ing elements and thus were not central to the program.
The various workshops planned for 1990 to provide long-term direction for several
core elements of the monitoring program will be critical to the quality of data generated
and the credibility of the program. They must involve those who are the immediate data
generators (i.e., field biologists and technicians) as well as scientists who understand the
bay ecosystem and the need for monitoring the biotic results of the bay restoration campaign.
The workshop reports must contain specific and detailed recommendations that can be
incorporated into new and existing surveys.
The Monitoring Plan es-
timate of the total cost of the
living resources monitoring pro-
gram was $4.01 million per year.
Of this amount, $2.26 million was
existing funding, with about $1.76
million required in additional
funds. The current cost and fund-
ing estimates that follow are very
approximate; some costs have
increased since the Monitoring
Plan was adopted, and some
"new" costs have been absorbed
by existing programs. Federal
and state initiatives have provid-
ed at least $1.20 million, or 68%,
of the new money. The remaining
funds (about $550,000) were intended for items (1) which are depending upon workshop
recommendations for their final form, or (2) have been deferred for technical reasons. The
most substantial new funding items were additional data management staff, supported by
the USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program and the States (estimated at $234,000), and the am-
bient toxicity assessment pilot project ($400,000 for two years).
LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING
Funding
Projected 1991 Told - $4.01M
($550, OOP)
| Existing FY 19B8 j
($2, 260, 000)
13
-------
Recommendations
o The Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy (CEC 1989) has made monitoring of
tidal and non-tidal wetlands a crucial element of the bay restoration. A
workshop to develop a wetlands monitoring plan is a high priority.
o Monitoring of oysters, clams and crabs needs to be reviewed fully in light
- of recent research and current management information needs. A monitoring
workshop for these species also is a high priority.
o Chesapeake Bay Program FY 1990 funds have been budgeted for monitoring
workshops. The Living Resources Monitoring Workgroup must coordinate with
the Wetlands Workgroup, the SAV Workgroup, and CBSAC to plan and facilitate
workshops, to be held during calendar year 1990, to develop specific monitoring
recommendations for wetlands, shellfish, SAV, and juvenile fish.
o Improved data management and increased attention to long-term living
resources data sets have resulted in improved accessibility and reliability of
important data sets. The CBPCC "Priority Data Sets Acquisition and Status
Listing" (Appendix B) should be maintained and periodically updated. The
current level of effort in living resources data management also should be
maintained.
o Computer resources at CBPCC are in need of review. Some of the living
resources data sets that have been acquired are quite large. Disk storage
space is saturated and memory is sometimes inadequate for processing the
large data sets efficiently.
o Although the recommended living resources reporting system is largely in
place (annual program reports, biennial "State of the Bay" Monitoring Report,
and occasional synthesis reports), it has not been formally adopted or understood
as a system by all data generators. Better coordination of data analysis and
reporting for living resources should be a priority of the Living Resources
Subcommittee's Monitoring Work Group and the Monitoring Subcommittee
through its Data Analysis Work Group.
o Vigorous efforts have been made over the first year since the adoption of
the Living Resources Monitoring Plan to address the Plan's objectives.
14
-------
Comparable efforts over the next year will ensure that a complete living resources
monitoring program will be in place on schedule in 1991. The chief requirement
is that coordination be maintained between program elements through continuing
review, communication and joint reporting.
REFERENCES
Chespeake Executive Council. 1988a. Living Resources Monitoring Plan. Bay Agreement
Commitment Document, July 1988.7
ibid. 1988b. Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy. Bay Agreement Commitment Document,
December 1988.
ibid. 1989a. Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Management Plan. Agreement Commitment Report,
July 1989.
ibid. 1989b. Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy. Agreement Commitment Report, July 1989.
ibid. 1990. Chesapeake Bay Waterfowl management Plan. Agreement Commitment Document.
In review.
Chesapeake Bay Program 1990. Ichthyoplankton Monitoring and Reseearch on the Chesapeake
Bay: Proceedings of a Workshop, 5 December 1989, Baltimore, MD.
Unpublished final report to The Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
Tidewater Administration, Annapolis, MD.
^Chesapeake Executive Council documents available from USEPA, Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office, Annapolis, MD.
15
-------
APPENDIX A
LIVING RESOURCES MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION
TRACKING MATRIX
17
-------
M£8#
•o -1 4J fi
5? CO -H
^o. ..-5
43 G rH Ijl
-r3 A!
-------
n
P
WJ V VI U W
41 6 O O Q>
sH g§ 0
§
•H
ti.
IS
I
.
t
O
01
en
-v
r-
o
43
i t>
I 1
ID
»
bg.
-8
a
n 41
SS1!
o id
-------
!
£
CO M
1
!
o
Ol
o
01
I
8-
<§
CO
~^
t-
K
T
q
II
t
t
t
: 1-1
LJSl
u
to
to
20
-------
o.
tJ
CO
r-
00
-------
Id «
3
I
I
*-i
I
5
I
8-
5
!
c
R
t
T
-i-
1
01
a
4
a:
6
I
2
o
4J
22
-------
1
i-3
!JS'
!
CD
CO
00
\
t~
I
I
n
a
1
a;
c
23
-------
CO
I
JJ
OT
O
\
!>•
s
O
\
r~
•5
CO
•^
r*
I
a o
a
3
o
24
-------
eh
00
B tr>
-H
JJ
I
§>
5
o>
00
BtJ
o
O!
in
(PP)
Init
25
-------
1
o
c
(1
o
o
t
(
i
o
a
a o
:35
O)
00
01
oo
I
JS
H
T)
0
a
a, o o M
a. o o a
ft
1
1
I
M
O -Jf tn o
o q
0,4J 01
o « i - .
o « TJ — a
jj o «i a
0 14 T5 -H JJ
Soi iti S q n S
. -y ^ -y 3 >ir
o> i
3
\ .
°
*^
s «r
u
O)
ao
' ft
26
-------
3
3
£
a
>JS-a
o>
00
O
01
O
O»
s
I
01
oo
\
a
§
•ri
I
I
CM
21
-------
a
I
I
I
§
1
t
m
i
t
l
I
m
<
t
•H 4J
28
-------
I
•8
01
00
•H
4J
Cn I
ot
CO
01
CO
I
»)
41
I
tn
I
M
5
en
CO
29
-------
I
.g
«sh'-
•H J> CO
§s.gn
•P U 4->
n) » -H o
ijJSd
3 ft 4J H 0,
!.g
T3
I'
» "
2 .a
m
oo
e
I
a
a
a
a;
c
•n I
1-
I
I
4J
n
I
30
-------
oo
oo
1
!
OD
CD
3
en
oo
en
oo
:
-------
I
fl) 0
u
I
3
cu
-------
APPENDIX B
PRIORITY DATA SETS ACQUISITION AND STATUS LISTING
(LIVING RESOURCES SECTION)
33
-------
ana
'•5i
i 4J J ^ ">
1 0) o rt n o o
> .-I w * o -H IH
i -H !? g - -H S >J
1111*
•H -H -
.gti*
34
-------
H i
Ol
00
01
00
O)
00
01
00
01
oo
oo
eg
Ol
oo
ro
\
00
w w
35
-------
36
-------
vi
en
o>
o
n
37
-------
38
-------
39
-------
40
-------
41
-------
w o
D ft
8.
42
-------
18?
18'
04 .0 O M N
co S H * H H co
r- a oo a oo 3 r-
cvi Ja §
Ol
oo
43
-------
II 3
44
-------
APPENDIX C
SAMPLES OF DOCUMENTATION AND CONTENTS FILES
FROM
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM LIVING RESOURCES DATA BASE
PROCESSING ORGANIZATION:
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
—Tidewater-Administration, Fisheries Division
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301)974-3784
CONTACTS: Phil Jones, Cluney Stagg
PR | PROGRAM SPONSOR, CONTRACT, PROJECT, OR
EXPERIMENT NAME
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Tidewater Administration, Fisheries Division
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
CONTRACT: DNR Contract No. F12/81/006
PROJECT: Assessment of the Population Dynamics of Important
Commercial or Recreational Fish in Chesapeake Bay.
PC | PROJECT COST AND DATES WHEN STUDY WAS
CONDUCTED
Cost: Study Dates: 1982 - 1984
AB | ABSTRACT
The data set, FISHLAND.SSD, contains annual landings
data for 120 commercial categories of finfish and shellfish from
the Chesapeake Bay, 1929 - 1988. The landings are stored by
state and by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) water
code. . . [much more].
FISH LANDING DATA 1929 - 1988
CONTENTS OF SAS DATA SET SYS$DATAl:[CRnTERS.FINnSH]FISHLAND.SSD
1. A portion of the documentation of fisheries
landings data for Chesapeake -Bay, available on-
line to users of the Chesapeake Bay Computer
Center.
DS | DATA SET NAME
SYSSDATA1: [CRITTERS.FINFISH] FISHLAND.SSD
TI | PROJECT TITLE
Chesapeake Bay Finfish Landings, 1929 - 1988, by NMFS
Water Code and State.
PI | PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
Christopher F. Bonzek and Philip W. Jones
PO | COLLECTING OR PROCESSING ORGANIZATION
COLLECTING ORGANIZATION:
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies
University of Maryland
Solomons, MD 20688
(301)326-4281
CONTACT: Dr. Brian Rothschild
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 222150
NUMBER OF VARIABLES: 12
#
4
11
8
10
5
7
2
9
6
12
1
3
VARIABLE
CATCH LB
COUNTY
GEAR
LBL
MONTH
SEGMENT
SOURCE
SPEC COD
TXCODE
VALUE D
WATERCOD
YEAR
TYPE LE
NUM 4
CHAR 2
CHAR 2
CHAR 35
NUM 4
CHAR 5
CHAR 8
CHAR 12
NUM 4
NUM 4
CHAR 5
NUM 4
—ALPHABETIC LIST OF VARIABLES AND ATTRIBUTES
IB POSITION LABEL
17
83
34
48
21
29
5
36
25
85
0
13
TOTAL POUNDS OF FISH
COUNTY CODE
CBP GEAR CODE
TAXONOMIC NAME OF FISH
MONTH
CBP SEGMENT DESIGNATION
DATA SET SOURCE
NOAA/NODC TAXONOMIC CODE
NMFS TAXONOMIC CODE
VALUE OF FISH CATCH IN DOLLARS
STATE + NOAA WATER CODE
YEAR
45
-------
2. A portion of the data documentation from the
Mussel Watch program data file.
DS*| DATA SET NAME
SYS$DATA1:[RESOURCE]MSL_BIV.SSD
TI*| PROJECT TITLE
National Status and Trends Program for Marine Environmental
Quality: Mussel Watch Project.
PI* | PRINCIPAL-INVESTIGATOR(S)
Louis W. Butler, NOAA (Principal Investigator) (301)
443-8655
James Price, NOAA (Data Submissions Contact) (301) 443-8655
Gunnar Lauenstein, NOAA (Asst. Contract Officer/Mussel
WatchjContract Officer/Speciman Banking) (301) 443-8655
John Tokar, NOAA (Quality Assurance)
PO*| COLLECTING OR PROCESSING ORGANIZATION
(address, telephone number, and contact, if different from principal
investigator)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Ocean Assessments Division
Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment
Rockwall Building
11400 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland 20852
Battelle Memorial Institute
Duxbury Operations
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, Massachusetts 02332
Robert Hillman (617) 934-0571
Carol Teven (Organics Analysis)
PR* | PROGRAM SPONSOR, CONTRACT, PROJECT, OR
EXPERIMENT NAME (include project officer, address, and telep-
hone number, if applicable)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Ocean Assessments Division
Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment
Rockwall Building
11400 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland 20852
301-443-8655 (Jim Price)
PC | PROJECT COST AND DATES WHEN STUDY WAS
CONDUCTED
Cost: Study Dates: 1986-present
(data set: 1986-1988)
AB*| ABSTRACT (Description of project, including purpose,
objectives, hypothesis, results, and conclusions)
Program Description: The National Oceanic and Atmosphe-
ric Administration (NOAA) National Status and Trends (NS&T)
Program makes a wide range of environmental measurements
to assess impacts of human activity on coastal and estuarine
regions. The Mussel Watch project is a component of the NS&T
program in which chemical contaminants in sediments and bivalve
tissues are assessed at 150 sites nationwide. This program is
similar to that originally sponsored between 1976 and 1978 by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It is expected that
information from the NS&T Program will provide a basis for
setting priorities for management action and for documenting
changes that occur because of such actions. It is the intention
of the program to quantify general areas in terms of contamina-
tion levels and it is important to note that sites selected for
sampling are deliberately NOT near point sources of contamina-
tion. Management action on any individual point source will
not be recognized in the NS&T data unless that source exerts
a strong influence on environmental quality over a relatively large
area. On the other hand, the NS&T program will identify the
combined influence of many point and non-point sources of con-
tamination to an area. Six Mussel Watch sites are located in
the Chesapeake Bay, and are the focus of this data set. Three
of these were also sampled between 1976 and 1978 through the
EPA program. The American Oyster is the target species in
the Bay. Selected Mussel Watch samples are stored at the
National Bureau of Standards through the NS&T Program's
Specimen Banking project for potential future research.
Parameters:
A). Bottom Sediment and Bivalve Tissue:
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH's)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's)
Additional Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Aluminum
Silicon
Chromium
Manganese
Iron
Nickel
Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Selenium
Tin
Antimony
Silver
Cadmium
Mercury
Thallium
Lead
B). Sediment only:
Grain Size
Total Organic Carbon/Carbonate
Chemical Sewage Tracer
C). Bivalve Tissue only:
Size
Weight
Gonadal/Somatic Index
Percent Lipids
46
-------
3. A portion of the documentation and complete
contents for the merged Maryland and Virginia
seining survey data set
DS | DATA SET NAME
SYS$DATA1:[RESOURCE]MDVAJIND.SSD
This data set replaces both SYS$DATA1: [RESOURCE] VA-
SEINE.SSDANDSYS$DATA1:[RESOURCE]JIND5786.SSD.
The two data sets were merged to create MDVAJIND.SSD
VIRGINIA data (formerly VASEINE.SSD)
DS | DATA SET NAME
FORMERLY SYS$DATA1: [RESOURCE]VASEINE.SSD
MERGED WITH MARYLAND (JIND5786) TO CREATE
MDVAJIND.SSD
TI | PROJECT TITLE
Virginia Juvenile Striped Bass Seine Survey.
PI | PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
James A. Colvocoresses
PO | COLLECTING OR PROCESSING ORGANIZATION
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
(804) 642-7307
PR | PROGRAM SPONSOR, CONTRACT, PROJECT, OR
EXPERIMENT NAME
National Marine Fisheries Service
Northeast Region, Division Federal Aid
Gloucester, MA 01930
CONTACT: Harry Mears (617-281-3600)
PC | PROJECT COST AND DATES WHEN STUDY WAS
CONDUCTED
Cost: Study Dates: 1967-1973, 1980-1985
AB_| ABSTRACT
Project is an annual survey of juvenile striped bass abundance
conducted each summer in the Virginia nursery grounds (James,
York, and Rappahannock drainages). Sampling is done at fixed
stations visited at regular intervals July-Sept. Collections are
made using a 100', 1/4" bar mesh beach seine, and supportive
hydrographic meteorological data are recorded with each
collection. All fish captured are identified and counted with
representative subsampks measured for each species. The primary
objective of the survey is to generate an annual index of young-o-
f-year striped bass abundance as an early measure of year class
strength. Data are also analyzed to examine relationships between
juvenile abundance and environmental parameters, interspeci-
fic interactions, and trends in abundance of other species.
[The Maryland Estuarine Juvenile Finfish Survey
also is documented for this data set; the text has
not been included for the purpose of brevity.]
CONTENTS OF SAS DATA SET SYS$DATA1:[RESOURCE]MDVAJIND.SSD
JUVENILE INDEX DATA 1957 - 1986 MARYLAND (JIND5786) AND VIRGINIA (VASEINE) NUMBER
OF OBSERVATIONS: 58271 NUMBER OF VARIABLES: 36
#
13
14
10
23
16
21
12
32
34
25
36
24
35
8
31
9
22
VARIABLE
BOTTYPEl
BOTTYPE2
CLOUD
CNT
DATE
DISOFFS
GEAR
LAT
LBL
LEN MAX
LEN MEN
LEN MIN
LEN MM
LIFE" STG
LONG
PRECIP K
REP NUM
TYPE LE
CHAR 2
CHAR 2
CHAR 1
NUM 4
NUM 4
NUM 4
CHAR 2
NUM 4
CHAR 30
NUM 4
NUM 4
NUM 4
NUM 4
CHAR 2
NUM 4
CHAR 2
NUM 4
—ALPHABETIC LIST OF VARIABLES AND ATTRIBUTES
FH POSITION LABEL
59
61
53
113
85
105
57
155
171
121
205
117
201
49
151
51
109
PRIMARY BOTTOM SEDIMENT TYPE
SECONDARY BOTTOM SEDIMENT TYPE
CLOUD COVER CODE
NUMBER PER SAMPLE
SAMPLE DATE
DISTANCE OFFSHORE [M]
GEAR CODE
STATION LATITUDE [DEC DEG]
TAXONOMIC NAME
MAXIMUM LENGTH [MM]
MEAN LENGTH IN MM
MINIMUM LENGTH [MM]
LENGTH [MM]
LIFE STAGE CODE
STATION LONGITUDE
PRECIPITATION CODE
REPLICATE NUMBER
47
-------
11
26
19
2
29
20
30
15
4
33
6
28
27
5
17
3
1
7
18
REP TYPE
ROUND
SALIN
SAMPLEID
SAV_P
SECCHI
SEGMENT
SITE
SOURCE
SPEC COD
SPEC COM
STATION
TDEPTH
TIDE
TIME
TXCODE
WINDIR
WINDSPD
WTEMP
CHAR 3
CHAR 8
NUM 4
CHAR 4
NUM 4
NUM 4
CHAR 5
CHAR 22
CHAR 7
CHAR 12
CHAR 30
CHAR 5
NUM 4
CHAR 1
NUM 4
CHAR 3
CHAR 3
CHAR 1
NUM 4
54
125
97
3
142
101
146
63
10
159
18
137
133
17
89
7
0
48
93
REPLICATE TYPE
SAMPLING ROUND
SALINITY [PPT]
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
MAXIMUM PERCENT COVERAGE BY
SAV
SECCHI DEPTH [M]
CBP SEGMENT CODE
MD/DNR SITE IDENTIFIER
COLLECTING AGENCY
NOAA/NODC TAXONOMIC CODE
SPECIES COMMON NAME
MD/DNR SITE CODE
TOTAL DEPTH AT STATION
TIDE
SAMPLING TIME [HHMM]
COLLECTING AGENCY (NMFS) SPECIES
CODE
WIND DIRECTION
WIND SPEED CODE
WATER TEMPERATURE pEG C]
4. Excerpts from the documentation and contents
list from the Adult Striped Bass Survey data set
DS*| DATA SET NAME
MDSTBASS.SSD
TI*| PROJECT TITLE
Maryland Striped Bass Research
PC | PROJECT COST AND DATES WHEN STUDY WAS
CONDUCTED
Cost: Study Dates: November 1981 - October 1982
October 1982 - June 1983
November 1983 -October 1984
November 1984 -October 1985
July 1985 - March 1986
January 1986 - June 1987
July 1987 - September 1988
AB* | ABSTRACT (Description of project, including purpose,
objectives, hypothesis, results, and conclusions)
From November 1981 to December 1984 the commercial
striped bass fishery was sampled for age, size and sex composition
and catch per unit effort aboard cooperating commercial fishing
vessels.
From spring 1982 to spring 1989 fishery independent stock
assessment studies were conducted in the upper Bay, the
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, and the Choptank River
spawning areas with standardized drift gill net arrays. The
Potomac River was also sampled from spring 1986 to spring
1989.
From January 1985 to December 1989 Fishery independent
stock assessment studies were conducted in the main Bay and
Choptank River during the fall and winter with standardized
anchor gill net arrays.
It is recommended that the above reports be reviewed to
determine the variances that occur between each year of
sampling before performing analysis.
48
-------
CONTENTS PROCEDURE
CONTENTS OF THE DATA SET MDSTBASS.SSD
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS: 108786 NUMBER OF VARIABLES: 39
#
31
7
10
36
37
1
2
8
27
39
4
3
30
17
19
18
20
21
22
5
26
32
11
12
13
14
15
25
6
24
38
28
29
16
23
34
9
35
33
VARIABLE
AGECLASS
AGENCY
AIRTEMP
BINTAG
BIOREMRK
BIOSTUDY
COLLECTR
DATE
FISHNO
FORKLEN
GEAR
HANG
MATURITY
MAXDEPTH
MESH
MINDEPTH
NETLNGTH
NETTYPE
NETWIDTH
NOAACODE
NUMFISH
OTOLTH
PH
SALINITY
SECCHI
SETNO
SETREMRK
SEX
SITE
SPCODE
SPWNCHK
TAGNO
TAGRT
TIME
TIMEOUT
TOTLEN
WATRTEMP
WGHT
YRCLASS
-—ALPHABETIC
TYPE LENGTH
CHAR 5
CHAR 4
NUM 8
CHAR 2
CHAR 2
CHAR 8
CHAR 3
CHAR 6
CHAR 3
NUM 8
CHAR 4
CHAR 2
CHAR 1
NUM 8
NUM 8
NUM 8
NUM 8
CHAR 1
NUM 8
CHAR 3
NUM 8
CHAR 2
NUM 8
NUM 8
NUM 8
CHAR 2
CHAR 3
CHAR 1
CHAR 3
CHAR 4
NUM 8
CHAR 6
CHAR 6
NUM 8
CHAR 4
NUM 8
NUM 8
NUM 8
CHAR 2
LIST OF VARIABLES AND ATTRIBUTES
POSITION
160
23
41
485
187
0
8
27
144
197
13
11
159
86
102
94
110
118
119
17
136
165
49
57
65
73
75
135
20
131
189
147
153
78
127
169
33
177
167
FORMAT
F3.
F4.
F3.
F5.2
F3.
F4.
F6.2
F4.
F4.1
F4.1
F4.1
F3.
F6.2
F4.
F3.
F5.
LABEL
AGECLASS
AGENCY
AIRTEMP
BINTAG
BIOREMRK
BIOSTUDY
COLLECTR
DATE
FISHNO
FORKLEN
GEAR
HANG
MATURITY
MAXDEPTH
MESH
MINDEPTH
NETLNGTH
NETTYPE
NETWIDTH
NOAACODE
NUMFISH
OTOLTH
PH
SALINITY
SECCHI
SETNO
SETREMRK
SEX
SITE
SPCODE
SPWNCHK
TAGNO
TAGRT
TIME
TIMEOUT
TOTLEN
WATRTEMP
WGHT
YRCLASS
49
------- |